Bergdahl deal was far from 'reasonable'

Friday

Jun 13, 2014 at 12:01 AMJun 14, 2014 at 8:04 AM

Eugene Robinson's commentary on Sunday ("Bergdahl deal was mostly reasonable," op-ed column) begs for a rebuttal. Robinson invokes the longtime commitment by fellow soldiers of leaving no soldier behind on the battlefield as the rationale for trading known terrorists for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release.

Robinson invokes the longtime commitment by fellow soldiers of leaving no soldier behind on the battlefield as the rationale for trading known terrorists for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release. Robinson then states that it is “pretty clear that he went AWOL.” I submit that Bergdahl left his post by his own actions, and no longer was a soldier.

It is unreasonable for Robinson to suggest that the deaths of six U.S. servicemen searching for Bergdahl are a “matter of semantics.” Try telling the families of those soldiers who died that the value of their sacrifice is subject to interpretation.

Robinson says that the price of Bergdahl’s release was not too high and, while “not cost-free,” it was OK, as “the war and the world have changed” since the detainees were captured in 2002.

Is Robinson suggesting that 12 years is his de facto statute of limitations on the atrocities these men are accused of committing? Try telling that to the families of the 3,000 people who died in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Robinson himself doesn’t know if “Obama complied with the letter of the law” and says that a “ heads up” would have been appropriate. Let’s see if I have this right: it’s OK to violate the letter of law if the perpetrator gives a heads up to the victims? Perhaps the Taliban should have told us ahead of time that the 9/11 attacks were forthcoming.

Bergdahl’s father grew a beard, studied Islam and learned Pashto. Oh, so that explains why the White House wasn’t prepared for a “safe and predictable” Rose Garden ceremony, as Robinson put it.